Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 226 Mo. App. 284 - Trigg v. Trigg

226 Mo. App. 284 - Trigg v. Trigg’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
10
states following
October 1971
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 1971 · most notably 241 Mo. App. 1202 - Phelps v. Phelps (1952), Kennedy v. Kennedy (1943)

32 state decisions — followed in 10 states

12019311940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Stevens v. Allen · 73 Cal. App. 565 - Johnston v. Benton · State ex rel. Kelly v. Shepherd · Pendleton v. Pendleton · 199 Mo. App. 439 - State ex rel. Taubman v. Davis

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is obvious that this language was meant to apply to the facts and circumstances in the case then under consideration, and it is equally obvious that it is directed solely to the elements necessary to create a residence. It has no reference whatever to the elements necessary to maintain said residence. The case is not an authority for the proposition that there must be a continuous physical presence for one whole year before suit. To give such interpretation to the statute would be unreasonable and oppressive. We hold in accord with the general expression of the law that residence is largely a matter of intention evidenced by some act or acts in conformity with such intention, and that a residence once established within this state and not thereafter changed is sufficient for the maintenance of a divorce action, notwithstanding the physical absence of the resident for a short or long period. In the case of an army officer it would be peculiarly arbitrary and unjust to deny him the right accorded any other citizen merely because of his physical absence from the state in the performance of his duty as a soldier. His absence is not of his own volition, but is occasioned by necessary obedience to martial orders. The continuity of residence is not broken by a mere bodily absence from the state. * * * ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.